CHARACTERISTICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND PERCEIVED WRONGDOING ASSOCIATED WITH WHISTLE-BLOWING DECISIONS

The potential explanations of why some observers report organizational wrongdoing, whereas others do not, are considered in this study. Nearly 8,600 randomly selected employees of 15 organizations completed questionnaires concerning whistle-blowing. Archival data and aggregate measures of organizational climate were also used. Discriminant analysis revealed that organization members who had observed alleged wrongdoing were more likely to blow the whistle if they had convincing evidence of wrongdoing, if the wrongdoing was serious, and if it directly affected them. Further, where the organization appeared to be dependent on the wrongdoing and threatened retaliation, whistle-blowers were more likely to report it to someone outside the organization. Implications for management practice and suggestions for future research are discussed.     

Predictors of responses to organizational wrongdoing: a study of intentions of management accountants

It has been proposed that employees aware of organizational wrongdoing face two decisions: whether or not to blow the whistle and whether or not to leave their organizations. Of these only the decision to blow the whistle has received attention, leaving a gap in knowledge; thus, a survey of 330 management accountants was analyzed to examine potential predictors of intended responses to organizational wrongdoing. Analysis of ratings indicated that intent to leave increased with seriousness of wrongdoing and expected retaliation for whistleblowing and decreased with expected effectiveness of whistleblowing. Intent to stay and blow the whistle increased with expected effectiveness of whistleblowing and role responsibility for reporting and decreased with expected retaliation for whistleblowing; intent to leave and blow the whistle increased with expected effectiveness of whistleblowing and role responsibility for reporting.     

Detecting children's true and false denials of wrongdoing: Effects of question type and base rate knowledge

One common and unfortunately overlooked obstacle to the detection of sexual abuse is non-disclosure by children. Non-disclosure in forensic interviews may be expressed via concealment in response to recall questions or via active denials in response to recognition (e.g., yes/no) questions. In two studies, we evaluated whether adults' ability to discern true and false denials of wrongdoing by children varied as a function of the types of interview question the children were asked. Results suggest that adults are not good at detecting deceptive denials of wrongdoing by children, even when the adults view children narrate their experiences in response to recall questions rather than provide one word answers to recognition questions. In Study 1, adults exhibited a consistent “truth bias,” leading them toward believing children, regardless of whether the children's denials were true or false. In Study 2, adults were given base-rate information about the occurrence of true and false denials (50% of each). The information eliminated the adults' truth bias but did not improve their overall detection accuracy, which still hovered near chance. Adults did, however, perceive children's denials as slightly more credible when they emerged in response to recall rather than recognition questions, especially when children were honestly denying wrongdoing. Results suggest the need for caution when evaluating adults' judgments of children's veracity when the children fail to disclose abuse.     

What do the TOSCA guilt and shame scales really measure: Affect or action?

Psychologists have long used the Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA) as an instrument for empirically distinguishing between trait emotions of guilt and shame. Recent assessments of the internal structure of the TOSCA guilt scale suggest that it may not measure the experience of guilt, but rather motivation to make amends for personal wrongdoing. In contrast, TOSCA shame may better assess the tendency to experience negative self-conscious affect. Previous research did not take into account that TOSCA guilt theoretically should only predict emotions in a situation of wrongdoing; we put this idea to the test in two studies. Experimental, but not control, participants received believable feedback that they had shown involuntary prejudice towards a member of a minority group. In both studies TOSCA guilt predicted reparative action after feedback was given, including expressing non-prejudiced views and recommending financial compensation to the minority group. However, TOSCA guilt had no relationship with feelings of guilt or shame after expressing prejudice. In contrast, TOSCA shame was a better predictor of feelings of guilt, shame and other self-critical emotions, but did not predict compensatory action. These findings suggest motivation rather than emotion as a mechanism behind past findings involving TOSCA guilt.     

INDIVIDUAL AND SITUATIONAL CORRELATES OF WHISTLE-BLOWING

Although popular interest in whistle-blowing continues to increase, little is known about why some employees who observe wrongdoing report it, while others do not. In the present study, we analyze archival survey data from individuals who observed wrongdoing in any of 22 organizations. Results are generally consistent with predictions based on a model of whistle-blowing as a type of prosocial behavior. Whistle-blowing was more likely when observers of wrongdoing (1) held professional positions, (2) had more positive reactions to their work, (3) had longer service, (4) were recently recognized for good performance, (5) were male (though race was unrelated to whistle-blowing), (6) were members of larger work groups, and (7) were employed by organizations perceived by others to be responsive to complaints. Implications for research and practice are described.     

Looking back and judging our predecessors

The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments has correctly argued that persons and institutions can sometimes be held responsible for actions taken more than a half-century ago, when practices and policies on the use of research subjects were strikingly different. In reaching its conclusions, the Committee did not altogether adhere to the language and commitments of its own ethical framework. In its Final Report, the Committee emphasizes judgments of wrongdoing, to the relative neglect of culpability; it discusses mitigating conditions that are exculpatory, but does not provide a thoroughgoing assessment of either culpability or exculpation. However, the Committee's shortcomings are mild in comparison to the deficiencies in the "Report of the UCSF Ad Hoc Fact Finding Committee on World War II Human Radiation Experiments" of the University of California at San Francisco. The latter report reaches no significant judgments of either wrongdoing or culpability. The findings that should have been reached by both committees are discussed.     

Shame expressions reduce the recipient’s insult from outgroup reparations

Despite a growing literature on the consequences of group-based guilt and shame, little work has examined how expressions of self-conscious emotions are received by targets of collective wrongdoing. Two experiments tested the hypothesis that when an outgroup member offers apologies accompanied by reparations, the recipients are likely to take insult unless the outgroup member expresses the self-abasing emotion of shame rather than guilt. Experiment 1 showed that when reparations were offered, participants were less insulted by shame than guilt expressed by an outgroup member, rather than an ingroup member. Experiment 2 improved Experiment 1 by manipulating the culprit’s action (reparation vs. withdrawal), and this experiment replicated Experiment 1’s interaction on a measure of insult, but only when reparations were offered. These interactions on insult were not explained by the emotion’s perceived intensity or surprisingness. Our results indicate a possible functional aspect of expressions of shame in an intergroup context. Self-abasement, as opposed to a mere admission of culpability and regret, can reduce the insult taken from an outgroup’s reparations.     

Whistle rates of wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus): influences of group size and behavior

In large social groups acoustic communication signals are prone to signal masking by conspecific sounds. Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) use highly distinctive signature whistles that counter masking effects. However, they can be found in very large groups where masking by conspecific sounds may become unavoidable. In this study we used passive acoustic localization to investigate how whistle rates of wild bottlenose dolphins change in relation to group size and behavioral context. We found that individual whistle rates decreased when group sizes got larger. Dolphins displayed higher whistle rates in contexts when group members were more dispersed as in socializing and in nonpolarized movement than during coordinated surface travel. Using acoustic localization showed that many whistles were produced by groups nearby and not by our focal group. Thus, previous studies based on single hydrophone recordings may have been overestimating whistle rates. Our results show that although bottlenose dolphins whistle more in social situations they also decrease vocal output in large groups where the potential for signal masking by other dolphin whistles increases.     

Interpersonal risk and the evaluation of transgressions in close relationships

An experiment examined individuals’willingness to excuse a romantic partner of blame for a transgression when perceptions that a relationship is risky are salient. Participants evaluated an actual transgression on measures tapping three levels of appraisal: (a) initial impressions of the act (i.e., severity of the transgression), (b) considerations of the context in which it occurred (i.e., judgments about excuses and extenuating context), and (c) judgments about its broader implications for the relationship (attributions of globality). Evaluator perspective was also varied. Half the participants (actors) evaluated their own partner's wrongdoing; half (observers) evaluated another participant's partner's wrongdoing. Compared to controls, risk participants rated the transgression as more severe and were more cautious and risk-averse in assessing the merits of potentially excusing information. Evaluator perspective did not influence these judgments, a finding consistent with a cognitive interpretation of the results. In contrast, the effects of risk on judgments of globality were more pronounced among observers than among actors, suggesting that motivational pressures come into play when the evaluative stakes are higher.     

The voice of experience

Whistleblowing is recognized as an important function in promoting scientific integrity, and there is a recognized need to protect whistleblowers. There is not much information available in the literature about scientific whistleblowing. Because it appears that frequently scientific misconduct is uncovered by a whistleblower, it is useful to obtain more information about the activity. This paper is about whistleblowing from the perspective of the person blowing the whistle. Information about a few selected cases of whistleblowing is presented in an attempt to augment the experiential aspect of the activity. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the symposium entitled “Damned If You Do. Damned If You Don’t: What the Scientific Community Can Do About Whistleblowing” held during the Annual Meeting of the AAAS, Seattle, Washington, 15 February, 1997.     

Silence is golden? Characteristics and experiences of self-reported whistleblowers

This study investigates the characteristics of whistleblowers, the prevalence and nature of whistleblowing, and the occurrence of retaliation after whistleblowing using a randomly selected and representative sample of Norwegian employees. The results showed that 12 per cent self-reported as whistleblowers according to an operational definition. Being a leader, or a union or personnel safety representative was significantly related to whistleblowing. The most frequently reported wrongdoing was harassment conducted by a single colleague. Wrongdoer(s) received mixed responses, from no reaction to reprimand. Even though most whistleblowers were not sanctioned, they reported less job satisfaction and more workplace bullying than did nonwhistleblowers. Only a few were rewarded. For the most part, wrongdoing was stopped or reduced. However, whistleblowing was only partially effective, because whistleblowers reported lack of feedback about the result of their report. Results also showed that the status of the wrongdoer was related to the reaction he or she received afterwards, as were the type of wrongdoing and the effect on the wrongdoing, and the type of wrongdoing and the effect on the wrongdoer(s). Potential explanations for the results, such as the type of sample and power distance, are discussed. Practical implications of the study are also addressed, such as the importance of providing feedback to whistleblowers.     

Reducing Road Rage: An Application of the Dissonance‐Attribution Model of Interpersonal Forgiveness1

Recent research ( Takaku, 2001; Takaku, Weiner, & Ohbuchi, 2001 ) tested and supported the hypothesis that injured parties' motivation to forgive their wrongdoers could be enhanced through inducing hypocrisy‐dissonance by making the injured parties aware of their own past wrongdoing. The present study tested and supported the model's applicability to people's road‐rage experiences by showing that individuals who were aware of their own past reckless driving generated more hypocrisy‐induced dissonance, more positive attributions, and less negative emotional reactions than individuals who were not aware of their own past reckless driving. Implications for future research and possible applications of the model in reducing road rage are discussed.     

Why the handicapped child case is hard

This paper discusses the handicapped child case and some other variants of Derek Parfit's non-identityproblem (Parfit, 1984) The case is widely held to show that there is harmless wrongdoing, and that amoral system which tries to reduce wrongdoing directly to harm (``person-affecting morality')is inadequate.I show that the argument for this does not depend (as some have implied it does) on Kripkean necessity of origin. I distinguish the case from other variants (``wrongful life cases') of the non-identityproblem which do not bear directly on person-affecting morality as I understand it. And finally, I describe a respect in which the handicapped child case is puzzling and counter-intuitive, even on the supposition that it is a case of harmless wrongdoing. I conclude that the case is ``hard': it will take more than the rejection of person-affecting morality to remove its puzzling character.     

The Role of Innocent Guilt in Post‐Conflict Work

The phenomenon of ‘innocent guilt’ regards cases where people feel guilty without being responsible for the wrongdoing or suffering at which the guilt is directed. The aim of this article is to develop a consistent account of innocent guilt and show how it may arise in the aftermath of conflicts. In order to do this, innocent guilt is contrasted with guilt and collective guilt, and the account is substantiated by drawing on the writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Emmanuel Levinas, who both consider the phenomenon of innocent guilt a necessary element in the fundamental structure of the ethical subject. These thinkers, furthermore, show a connection between guilt and possible victims of wrongdoing, rather than between guilt and personal acts of wrongdoing. Innocent guilt may thus appear in the aftermath of conflicts as an ethical and emotional response to the fact of finding oneself in a post‐conflict situation still marked by suffering. It thus reveals a fundamental need to contribute to the relieving of such suffering.     

Follower moral reasoning influences perceptions of transformational leadership behavior

Transformational leadership reflects charismatic, but ethical, influence on followers. However, leadership ultimately occurs through the perceptual and attribution processes within followers. Accordingly, the perception and evaluation of transformational leadership is likely to be influenced by followers' moral reasoning, which is the ability that allows individuals to identify and interpret ethically‐salient issues in social environments. As predicted by social‐cognitive principles of self‐schemas, observers' moral reasoning positively related to the perception and positive evaluation of transformational leadership behavior, but not to positive affective reactions towards that behavior. These same relationships did not occur for the perception and evaluation of transactional leadership behavior. Implications for whistle‐blowing behavior, organizational ethics, and the measurement of transformational leadership are discussed.     

Desert for Wrongdoing

Much government and personal conduct is premised on the idea that a person made thereby to suffer deserves that suffering thanks to prior wrongdoing by him. Further, it often appears that one kind of suffering is more deserved than another and, in light of that, conduct inflicting the first is superior, or closer to being justified than conduct inflicting the second. Yet desert is mysterious. It is far from obvious what, exactly, it is. This paper offers and argues for a theory of comparative desert. It offers an account of the conditions under which one harm is more deserved for past wrongdoing than another. The theory offered here can be stated, roughly, like so: One harm is more deserved for a wrongful act than another if, in light of it more than the other, the act is supported by reasons for the agent in a way similar to the way it ought to have been supported by reasons for him. The central task of the paper is to explain, elaborate and offer an argument for this theory. The paper also shows that, under the theory, differences in culpability—as between, for instance, intentionally rather than knowingly bringing about a harm—make a difference to desert. And the paper shows that under the proposed theory it is easier for the state to justify inflicting a punishment that is more deserved than it is to justify inflicting a punishment that is less deserved.